Science, politics, and ideology in the campaign against environmental tobacco smoke.
(25/193)
The issue of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the harms it causes to nonsmoking bystanders has occupied a central place in the rhetoric and strategy of antismoking forces in the United States over the past 3 decades. Beginning in the 1970s, anti-tobacco activists drew on suggestive and incomplete evidence to push for far-reaching prohibitions on smoking in a variety of public settings. Public health professionals and other antismoking activists, although concerned about the potential illness and death that ETS might cause in nonsmokers, also used restrictions on public smoking as a way to erode the social acceptability of cigarettes and thereby reduce smoking prevalence. This strategy was necessitated by the context of American political culture, especially the hostility toward public health interventions that are overtly paternalistic. (+info)
The cultural specifity of research ethics--or why ethical debate in France is different.
(26/193)
In the search for a globally binding ethical minimal consensus in dealing with research on human beings the awareness of the cultural specificity of such questions will be of central importance. France provides a good example of such cultural specificities. Three basic structures of French discussion on research ethics can be enumerated: first the particular weight placed on therapeutic benefit, second a particular accentuation on freedom and voluntarism, and third its lesser attention to the aspect of ability to give consent. The weak emphasis on the ability to give consent is rooted as much in the traditionally paternalistically imbued physician-patient relationship as in the French legal system, in which the doctrine of consent is not given the fundamental position of importance found in the Anglo-Saxon countries. As an important Roman country, a different accentuation in the ethical discussion on research on humans can be recognised, a discussion in which for a long time the right of self determination was less of a criterion for decision than the teleology of medical action. It is precisely this aspect of latent cultural influence in ethical convictions which is of decisive importance for future discussion on research on humans. (+info)
Grasping the nettle--what to do when patients withdraw their consent for treatment: (a clinical perspective on the case of Ms B).
(27/193)
Withdrawal of active treatment is common in medical practice, especially in critical care medicine. Usually, however, it involves patients who are unable to take part in the decision making process. As the case of Ms B shows, doctors are sometimes reluctant to withdraw active treatment when the patient is awake and requesting such a course of action. In theory, having a competent patient should facilitate clinical decision making, so where does the problem arise? It is argued that latent medical paternalism may come to the surface when doctors are asked by patients to follow a course of action which is in conflict with their own perspective. (+info)
Bioterrorism, public health, and human rights.
(28/193)
It is unnecessary and counterproductive to sacrifice basic human rights to respond to bioterrorism. Constructive public health legislation, which must be federal, cannot be carefully drafted under panic conditions. When it is, like the "model act," it will predictably rely on broad, arbitrary state authority exercised without public accountability. Public health should resist reverting to its nineteenth-century practices of forced examination and quarantine, which will simply encourage people to avoid physicians, hospitals, and public health practitioners they now trust and actively seek out in emergencies. Upholding human rights is essential to public trust and is ultimately our best defense against the threat of terrorism in the twenty-first century. (+info)
Chevron v Echazabal: public health issues raised by the "threat-to-self" defense to adverse employment actions.
(29/193)
In June of 2002, the US Supreme Court upheld a regulation that allows employers, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to make disability-related employment decisions based on risks to an employee's own personal health or safety. Previous judicial decisions had allowed employers to make employment decisions based on the threat that a worker's medical condition posed to others but had not addressed the issue of risk posed to an employee's health by his or her own disability. The authors comment on the potential effects of the court's decision for occupational health practitioners charged with assessing the degree of risk and harm of a particular workplace environment and for public health efforts aimed at curbing workplace injury and sickness. (+info)
Workers' liberty, workers' welfare: the Supreme Court speaks on the rights of disabled employees.
(30/193)
On June 10, 2002, a unanimous US Supreme Court rejected the claim by Mario Echazabal that he had been denied his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act when Chevron USA had refused to employ him because he had hepatitis C. Chevron believed that Echazabal's exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals in its refinery would pose a grave risk to his health. This case poses critical questions about the ethics of public health: When, if ever, is paternalism justified? Must choice always trump other values? What ought to be the balance between welfare and liberty? Strikingly, the groups that came to Echazabal's defense adopted an antipaternalistic posture fundamentally at odds with the ethical foundations of occupational health and safety policy. (+info)
Chevron v Echazabal: protection, opportunity, and paternalism.
(31/193)
The Supreme Court, in Chevron v Echazabal, ruled that risks to a disabled worker, if established by an individualized medical assessment, can disqualify the worker from protections offered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This decision rejected the antipaternalist position of ADA advocates that workers with disabilities should be able to determine, through their own consent, the risks they will take. Such strong antipaternalism may not be compatible with the underlying justification for the protection of workers against health hazards. Stringent regulation of workplace hazards involves restricting the scope of consent to risk. Resolution of this conflict will depend on more careful examination of the degree to which individualized medical assessments avoid stereotyping and bias. (+info)
Medical disclosure and refugees. Telling bad news to Ethiopian patients.
(32/193)
The strong value in American medical practice placed on the disclosure of terminal illness conflicts with the cultural beliefs of many recent refugees and immigrants to the United States, who often consider frank disclosure inappropriate and insensitive. What a terminally ill person wants to hear and how it is told are embedded in culture. For Ethiopians, "bad news" should be told to a family member or close friend of the patient who will divulge information to the patient at appropriate times and places and in a culturally approved and recognized manner. Being sensitive to patients' worldviews may reduce the frustration and conflict experienced by both refugees and American physicians. (+info)